welcome aboard, mr. mamet!

"Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president--whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster--were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"--the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live."

the link wouldn't open up though in reference to what is printed above...

if mamet was a brain dead liberal when he wrote 'glenngerry glenn Ross', tis sad that he has changed.
that was a joke for those who can't tell the difference.

seriously, tis good that he notes the hypocrisy in his views and that it isn't a matter of party though the person who would be president.
i hold bush in contempt though not mccain.
and while johnson did escalate the war, he continued kennedy's work on the civil rights movement.
there's no one perfect... tis just that no one exemplifies it quite like our current president.
that is not a joke.
mamet's remarks about corporations appears to be shallow. just because one has a hunger for their products doesn't mean that that corporation shouldn't be scrutinized (though not necessarily vilified).
we all need food though we should see that it is grown without harmful pesticides, growth hormones, etc...
seldom do these corporations have our best interest at heart... tis the dollar, of course.
that is why we've recalls from china, civil and wrongful death suits, etc....

all the best.

Wow. Interesting. Looks like Mamet may have had a Dennis Miller-like epiphany.

"Looks like Mamet may have had a Dennis Miller-like epiphany."

it's a good thing that mamet doesn't have to be funny like dennis does.
the new miller material.... oh... there is no new miller material.

now i don't want to get off on a rant here....
ha ha
perhaps dennis simply can't find anything funny in this current administration.

now that's funny!

I think only 90 died at the Bay of Pigs.

dennis has ALWAYS been funny.

it took me four times to finally access the entire article.

i figured if it could happen to horowitz, hey why not more?!?

Another person calling the opposite side "brain dead". What else is new. Still, speaking as an independent, the upside is that it will convince even more people to become independent. Speed up the day everyone will learn to think for themselves.

Mamet,

Bravely and accurately said...how refreshing.

I think only 90 died at the Bay of Pigs.
Posted by shirtsbyeric


Are you implying that the outing of Valerie Plame is somehow worse than having 90 dead guys at the Bay of Pigs?

Nancy, I might most humbly suggest that rather than tarring all political leaders with the same brush - Nixon and Bush as Spitzer and Clinton - you work like the very dickens for someone you DO trust. Like it or not, YOU are the government, the government is you. I take Mamet's attention-getting insights with a grain of salt, as you ought to. herm

Another person calling the opposite side "brain dead".

What side is/was he on? If reading the article is any indication, the guy neither was a liberal, nor does he seem to know what a liberal actually is. He has plenty of bumpersticker talk, generalizing, oversimplifying, and mythology, but not much insight into liberals.

Sure he thinks he knows what it means to be a liberal, but so do Nanc and Kerrin. Your average high school dropout has more intellectual prowess in the piggy that cried, "wee wee wee" all the way home than those two muppets.

So he's not a "brain dead liberal". Great. Good for him. But as far as I can tell it doesn't change much. Now he is just a self-aware brain dead(insert party he perceives to give him stuff-here) that writes single-run plays 99.9999999999% of the world has never heard of and don't want to see.

His comparisons are ridiculous. You can't disregard the belief in the fifties and sixties that we were in a life-death struggle against communism. Thus comparing JFK's, Johnson's motivation for the Vietnam war to the cynical quest for oil in Iraq is ridiculous.
Comparing the Bay of Pigs disaster to the outing of Valerie Plame is disgusting, Kennedy feared WWIII if he went along with the Bay of Pigs, which had been planned by the previous administration...while the outing of Valerie Plame was purely political revenge.
His comments about "hatred of corporations" is a stupid generalization, most "liberals" don't hate "corporations" they hate some of the most egregious practices that harm people, that steal from the treasury, that buy politicians.
Oversimplification of "liberal" thought reduces his disaffection from "liberalism" to a rant by someone who really never sought the truth about "liberalism." Most of his comments seem no better than simple minded talking points. Too much Rush is my guess. Or maybe the Oxycontin.

In my experience, when one has come to the conclusion that one has been "brain dead", one shouldn't leap to conclusions about the remedy.

Brilliant writer, not terribly good at political analysis, but rather good at timing his "bombshell" realignment to coincide with the release of his political play...

herm - whose do you take with NO salt? who are worthy?

danni - he said he was listening to NPR about the time of his epiphany.

you know, the government based propaganda machine?

"Most of his comments seem no better than simple minded talking points."
Posted by danni


HAHA!! Unintentional comedy.

Danni, simple minded talking points are the coin of the blog realm! And it's extremely likely and not surprising that after a while a thinking person such as Mamet would become fed up with them.

Why is the defection of this one guy so threatening to youse?

Mamet's political observations are, regrettably, not on par with his literary ones.

His points of comparison between Bush and Kennedy are not analogous when one considers degree. Bay of Pigs is not GWII. It's not even a pet market suicide bombing. The blithe exoneration of corporations because they provide us with "things we need" and not the way in which said things are provided is facile and disingenuous.

Ultimately, he comes off as neither liberal (which I don't believe he would have been accused of being before his "transformation") or conservative, but the "brain dead" part may still be apt.

Despite the pejorative headline, it is actually a well-written piece. He appears to take a swipe at those who hang at both extremes of the political spectrum. Even caused a rightie curmudgeon like me to pause and consider that the day-to-day motives of liberals and the day to day motives of my ilk are driven by the same basic needs and desires. We just happen to each consider ourselves more correct than the other guy.

"""This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong."""

If that's his understanding of liberalism, he never got it in the first place.

"""And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"--the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live."""

Simplistic view. If he can't see the pernicious relationship between corporations and the government, he's blind. He thinks corporations are benevolent to society and only want to offer their wares? Risible.

"""Do I speak as a member of the "privileged class"? If you will--but classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view."""

He is part of the privileged class, and his subsequent denial of it highlights his lack of understanding. Over generations, classes are mobile, though less now than in the past. Doesn't detract that your present situation defines your outlook on social needs and values, so his present position is privileged, hence a privileged POV.


"""But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?"""

Then the man goes on to compare with a stage play and a director's contribution or non-contribution. He fails to admit that the actors are not left on their own, he just takes the place, role and responsibilities of the director.

What a fluff job ... no substance, just a poor comprehension of what a liberal is, anecdotal observations, poor analogies and comparisons. Now wonder the righties from this site are getting boners.

You may think you've struck gold here but

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side--but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler. Happy election season.

Mamet: 'I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'

Congratulations on your improvement. However, our tests show that you're still a disfunctioinal POS with no reasoning ability. The good news is that you are now ready to be a Superdelegate.

"Now wonder the righties from this site are getting boners."

FF for PANCHO

Now wonder the righties from this site are getting boners.
Posted by panchovilla


Again - why are you guys so threatened by this one guy's defection?

"Why is the defection of this one guy so threatening to you?"

i'm not sure this is much a defection as it is a centralizing of his belief system. i seriously doubt mamet will start embracing w. and his tactics.
nowhere in the article, all 5 pages of the well written though extremely self-aware-dribble, does he state that he becoming a conservative.
as noted above, mamet's got a new play and needed a headline.

from the article | "The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side--but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler."

Now wonder the righties from this site are getting boners.

Posted by panchovilla at 2008-03-12 04:04 PM | Reply


Is there a torture thread I missed?

mrfair - it's like the "bad" kid gone good scenario. the left is not usually very happy when something good happens to somebody else.

you can see it in all the ugliness spewed by them here day in and day out - look at how they treat nice people and therein lies your clue.

Best of luck, Mr. Mamet, with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, FOX News and the neoconservatives. So you're unhappy with brain-dead liberalism? Aren't we all equally unhappy with brain-dead liberalism and brain-dead conservatism.

Both parties have their fair share of the brain-dead. The difference is that the GOP has allowed itself to be taken over by the brain-dead whereas the Democrats haven't unless you think that Obama and Clinton are as brain-dead as George W. Bush. If you do believe that it can only mean that you too are brain-dead given the weekly evidence of brain-deadness that Bush provides.

"Again - why are you guys so threatened by this one guy's defection?"

Threatened??? It was more like Nance was daring us to refute the comments by a famous intellectual who claims to have been a "liberal" not realizing that his comments would be so easily revealed as shallow talking points not even based on real consideration of his own examples. If I were Mamet, I'd be very embarrassed, my guess is that he is because I doubt that we are the only ones trashing this stupid commentary. If anything, his rejection of "liberalism" is a backhanded compliment from a "conservative" unaware that he is doing so.

"nowhere in the article, all 5 pages of the well written though extremely self-aware-dribble, does he state that he becoming a conservative."
Posted by sense


Sense - I'm not even going that far: it's just Mamet distancing himself from "liberalism" and immediately the Lefty DR knives come out...

If I were Mamet, I'd be very embarrassed...

Posted by danni at 2008-03-12 04:17 PM | Reply |

If you're not embarrased by the stupidity you reveal here on a daily basis then nothing will embarrass you.

Pot, kettle, bong.

Best of luck, Mr. Mamet, with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, FOX News and the neoconservatives. So you're unhappy with brain-dead liberalism? Aren't we all equally unhappy with brain-dead liberalism and brain-dead conservatism.

Both parties have their fair share of the brain-dead. The difference is that the GOP has allowed itself to be taken over by the brain-dead whereas the Democrats haven't unless you think that Obama and Clinton are as brain-dead as George W. Bush. If you do believe that it can only mean that you too are brain-dead given the weekly evidence of brain-deadness that Bush provides.

Posted by BlueInBushland


Hey Stephen Hawking, try reading AND comprehending the article? Also see Sense's fine post of 4:11PM and mine of 4:18PM. Now - good day, sir. GOOD DAY.

you can see it in all the ugliness spewed by them here day in and day out - look at how they treat nice people and therein lies your clue.

Yeah 101's pretty hard on you righties ain't he.

Again - why are you guys so threatened by this one guy's defection?

Posted by MrFair at 2008-03-12 04:07 PM | Reply |

Not worried, his fluff article makes him out to be stupid and simple-minded...as regime pointed out: brain-dead, period.

I think only 90 died at the Bay of Pigs.

Posted by shirtsbyeric

Ya, them damn republicans realy blew that. OH, JFK was in office then. I guess that's just as bad. His policies were very much like Ragan's.

Yeah 101's pretty hard on you righties ain't he.


Actually, he is.


Scroll through his post history and you'll see it.

Okay, JeffJ, I scrolled, but I don't see it. What posts are you referring to?

White was a pretty clear-headed man, and he'd seen human nature as few can. (As Twain wrote, you want to understand men, run a country paper.) White knew that people need both to get ahead and to get along, and that they're always working at one or the other, and that government should most probably stay out of the way and let them get on with it. But, he added, there is such a thing as liberalism, and it may be reduced to these saddest of words: " . . . and yet . . . "

The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side--but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler. Happy election season.

Too bad that no one bothered to read (or understand) what Mamet was saying.

It always helps to read an entire article, especially the end.

Hans

Posted by Hans


I understood perfectly. Hence my 4:22 post to Blueinbushland.

Why is the defection of this one guy so threatening to youse?

I'm not threatened by a great playwright like David Mamet calling himself a former "brain-dead liberal" and renouncing it for conservatism. But it is disappointing, and his piece does not suggest had much of an understanding of liberalism, at least how I define the term. The "National Palestinean Radio" crack alone makes him sound foolish.

His liberalism -- believing in a world where everything about America is bad -- isn't mine. It's a caricature of liberalism like the one Rush Limbaugh conjures up for his listeners.

You can't disregard the belief in the fifties and sixties that we were in a life-death struggle against communism.
Thus comparing JFK's, Johnson's motivation for the Vietnam war to the cynical quest for oil in Iraq is ridiculous.


Why not? That belief was still held long after the anti-war movement held their last protest. The fear of a communist invasion and communist subversion was a major part of policy up until the 1990's. So we can't dismiss it, yet that's exactly what the anti-Vietnam-war movement did.

On topic:

If one person's defection to one party or the other is what it takes to validate your association with that party, perhaps you should take a look at your own values.

CMS1,
Yeah, you're right, Obama should abandon his campaign based on that. Keep throwin the shit at the wall and maybe something someday will stick.

Jeff,

Scroll through his post history and you'll see it.

Nanc was implying that only "the left" partakes in such activity. I was addressing that particular whine.

"Why not? That belief was still held long after the anti-war movement held their last protest. The fear of a communist invasion and communist subversion was a major part of policy up until the 1990's. So we can't dismiss it, yet that's exactly what the anti-Vietnam-war movement did."

Well, not really into the nineties but otherwise true. My point was that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson were all acting on what they believed was a legitimate threat to the United States under the Domino Theory which was the driving force behind our attempts to stop Communism wherever it rose its head. Mistaken, possibly though not entirely, but legitimate and sincerely out of patriotic concern for America.
That just can't be said of the motivating factors for invading Iraq. There was no credible threat to America, Baathism was hardly going to become an ideology threatening our own, no it was purely a cynical grab for control of the Iraq oil fields.
This whole discussion is silly anyway, who really cares what pursuasion DAvid Mamet is today? I have seen a few of his movies, and some were good, but really I don't know much about him nor care to.

"herm - whose do you take with NO salt? who are worthy?"

Not sure if your question is rhetorical, nancy, but you must answer your own questions, just as you must manufacture your own gods. If you can find NO one worthy of your energy, then I just as humbly suggest that maybe the fault lies within you and you are indeed the DR poster child for cynicism. There are many I trust, but then I'm one of those starry-eyed libs. herm

"If you're not embarrased by the stupidity you reveal here on a daily basis then nothing will embarrass you."

Another well-reasoned polemic by this site's No. 1 apostle of conservative - er - thought. And another "whimp," pussy or traitor bites the dust. herm

Why is the defection of this one guy so threatening to youse?

I'm not threatened by a great playwright like David Mamet calling himself a former "brain-dead liberal" and renouncing it for conservatism. But it is disappointing, and his piece does not suggest had much of an understanding of liberalism, at least how I define the term. The "National Palestinean Radio" crack alone makes him sound foolish.

His liberalism -- believing in a world where everything about America is bad -- isn't mine. It's a caricature of liberalism like the one Rush Limbaugh conjures up for his listeners.

Posted by rcade


Rogers - my question was directed not at you but at the more obvious of the knee-jerkers responding to this story.

Waaaahhh, Mamet is a privileged POS, he never got liberalism in the first place, he should be embarassed, righties are getting a boner, he is still brain dead, argghhh!!!!

*Running in circles, hair messed up, waving arms uselessly, gnashing teeth, rending garments*

The knee-jerk rejection of Mamet by the DR Left would be really funny if it wasn't so sad.

my question was directed not at you but at the more obvious of the knee-jerkers responding to this story.

The most serious "knee-jerk" was the implication that this was some major defection from one ideology to the polar opposite.

Except for the "Waaaahhh" and "argghhh!!!!" everything else is unemotionally factual in that first sentence. Especially the boner part.

Most of his comments seem no better than simple minded talking points.
Posted by danni at 2008-03-12 03:52 PM | Reply

This is Danni's favorite way of dismissing anyone who disagrees with her. Simply say they are mere'talking points'is supposed to imply that they are not worthy of her time to even discuss.

In fact, Danni has to be dismisive because she cannot engage the discussion, though she made an effort earlier in the same post: acknowledging that Vietnam was a part of the global Cold War.

Ever once in a while Danni will show a spark of light, but then has to fall back on her few simple minded 'talking points.'

Especially the boner part.

Posted by YAV at 2008-03-12 06:32 PM

TMI, keep your fantasies to yourself.

Especially the boner part.
Posted by YAV


And tell me: why does that in particular stand out for you?

Two retorts to that? Dog, rock, yelp! I suppose.

I just thought it was a funny image. Besides, "wetting yourselves" has been overused.

I'd hoped the wry humor would be appreciated by ROC.

It was, hence my 6:36.

(enjoyed the TMI, BTW!)

Two primary dictionary definitions are:
conservative: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change
liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

I would add:
Conservative:
1C. They spend less than they earn and save the difference.
2C. They proselytize endlessly, even waging war because might makes right.
3C. They respect authority which in their minds trumps reason often by force.
4C. Respect for authority is usually associated with a belief in a Supreme authority.
5C. They believe in absolute truth.
6C. They defend the status quo and resist change.
7C. They believe in the goodness of themselves and their own country without necessarily projecting those beliefs on other cultures and countries.
8C. Their policies are shaped by the principal "Me First" which they apply in domestic and international affairs.
9C. Their policies are shaped by the principal that people act like animals given the right combination of stress, inducements and power.

Liberal:
1L. They spend more than they earn and borrow the difference.
2L. They mind their own business, seeking peace and harmony (leave each other alone).
3L. They bestow no particular wisdom on authority, but believe that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
4L. Their beliefs may include a Supreme authority, but are compelled by logic and reason.
5L. They believe that truth is relative. What is good for you may not be good for me, not just in domestic terms, but also international relations.
6L. They curse the status quo and welcome change.
7L. They believe in the goodness of most or all people. They attempt to develop policies based on item 2L.
8L. Their policies are shaped by the principal that everyone is entitled to an equal piece of the pie.
9L. Their policies are shaped by the principal that people want to do the right thing, if only given a chance.

What is striking is that few people (by any label) would admit they love to spend more than they make, hate change, reject reason or the founding principals of our Democracy. Our country was founded on conservative principals 1C & 9C and liberal principals 2L, 3L & 4L. In other words our country and most people are more liberal than generally admitted, but two central founding principals are conservative. The other points were never agreed apon in enough detail to be consistently incorporated into our laws and policies. They have become law and policy by the whim of our current rulers, but get revised periodically.

Whether you agree with all these details or not you must also notice that Bush, Clinton and everyone else hardly matches their advertised labels at all.

I believe Mr. Mamet and most Conservatives have confused definitions of these terms. They have been driven exclusively into the conservative camp by media campaigns which seek to confuse, for profit. In other words the things which our founding fathers sought to protect us from have become the reality we live in anyway. Might makes right, profits over people.

Rogers - my question was directed not at you but at the more obvious of the knee-jerkers responding to this story.

I thought it was a good question to answer, so I borrowed it.

Losing David Mamet hurts. I don't know who's turn it was to keep an eye on him, but that lib is going to find coal in his stocking this Holidaymas.

10C. They don't want help strangers or pay tax. Samaritan practices are restricted to kin, country and/or those of similar beliefs.

10L. They want to help the world, often joining altruistic organizations. Following the dictats of Jesus. Doesn't object to taxation much at all.

This was a great written article. A lot of discussion on this topic has been great as well. It goes to show that 90% of us are really a lot closer in values than we think. We all hate corporations that abuse their position. We all think the idea of more government in our lives is disturbing. We all want to live in peace and harmony. We all care about our fellow man and want to be sure that they are able to live a comfortable life.

The difference lies in how we achieve these values. Conservatives are not hate mongers, it's that they have worked their asses off to get where they are in life and do not want it taken from them. Liberals are not "brain-dead" socialists, but they believe that people's good will is not enough to help those at the bottom. If we took the time to discuss these differing opinions rather than tear each others ideas down, that's when real change could occur.

"10C. They don't want help strangers or pay tax. Samaritan practices are 10C. They don't want help strangers or pay tax. Samaritan practices are restricted to kin, country and/or those of similar beliefs.

10L. They want to help the world, often joining altruistic organizations. Following the dictats of Jesus. Doesn't object to taxation much at all."

This is completely invalid. I'm not sure where you lay in the political belief spectrum, but it would seem you know little about conservatives. There was a study done a couple years back (I think by ABC) that went into tax records. They found that registered Repubs (we'll classify them as conservative) donated 30% more OF their income (not 30% more income) than registered Dems (we'll call them liberals) to charity. That sounds like wanting to help strangers to me and not "restricted to kin, country and/or those of similar beliefs."

PINKIE,

I am trying to show how we are all a blend of so called Conservative and Liberal values that really defy "conventional" wisdom, put in the context of USA propaganda.

Some definitions fit easily and consistently, but in my mind 2L is really a conservative idea and 10C has more to do with the most influential conservative voices in Washington. Its the almost the only thing Reagan ever harped on.

The brilliant recognition that we are all animals at heart which require checks and balances to have a Government that can serve the common good effectively is our founding Conservative idea.

Such thoughts are completely lost on Bush, Cheney, Kissinger, Rice, Rummy, Wolfy, Rockerfeller etc. They and many other rich folks and their shills, exercise power in a completely selfish manner, yet actively seek to be labeled conservative.

If you are in your 20's and are not a liberal, you have not heart.
If you are in your 40's and are not a consevative, you have no brain


W.C.

I've seen "Waiting for Godot" several times,one version starred Barry Morse.I can only describe this story as one of the dullest most "Bore-Ass" plays that you could ever have the misfortune to sit through.Its like a meal of bread sticks served to a starving man but with only a few measly crumbs put on the plate.

(*So David Mamet is no longer a "Brain Dead Liberal" - does this mean he's now a "Scheming,Conservative War Monger"?)

Well, that's fine, but we're talking about David Mamet, not Samuel Beckett.

"This is completely invalid. I'm not sure where you lay in the political belief spectrum, but it would seem you know little about conservatives. There was a study done a couple years back (I think by ABC) that went into tax records. They found that registered Repubs (we'll classify them as conservative) donated 30% more OF their income (not 30% more income) than registered Dems (we'll call them liberals) to charity."

I think it would be nice if you supplied a link to back up that claim. Don't you?

PINKIE...YOU ARE RIGHT...I RATHER HAVE A CHOICE TO GIVE MONEY TO A CHARITY....THAN THE GOVERNMENT TAKING MY MONEY AND GIVING IT AWAY

IF LIBS...what to help people at the bottom...they should get involved with charity....and convince people to give up their money for the greater good.....not get involved with government to take money away from hard working people

Yes, of course, those godless LIBS never give anything to anyone. And they should GET THE HELL out of government, and leave it all to the munificent RIGHT.

Tithing is, I am sure, considered quite charitable but somehow I think that it shouldn't be lumped in together with other charitable giving which, I am sure, accounts for the numbers in the study.
In the words of a famous singer..."that don't impress me much."

Tithing is, I am sure, considered quite charitable but somehow I think that it shouldn't be lumped in together with other charitable giving which, I am sure, accounts for the numbers in the study.
In the words of a famous singer..."that don't impress me much."

Posted by danni at 2008-03-12 10:44 PM |

Glad you saved room for the other foot. Maybe if you had bothered to read the article or the any of the 308,000 links you wouldn't have opined about something you know nothing about. Or you could have simply wrote my bad. I was wrong.

Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: "their religious participation." Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much.

But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?

"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."

So those hated Muslims are charitable?

So those hated Muslims are charitable?

Posted by Jomama at 2008-03-12 11:02 PM

If they are conservative muslims they give 30% more than the liberal muslims.

Fuckin' Ruthie, fuckin' Ruthie, fuckin' Ruthie.

Mamet's a brilliant playwright, but I'd agree with other posters that his "Liberals are just big whiny pants" analysis is a little off.

When I got done with the article, though, I'd also agree that he wasn't so much moving towards conservatism as moving towards the center. It's not that bad of a place to be, really. More than anything, the politics of us vs. them are what disgusts me.

As a "liberal," I will say there are certain aspects of conservative thought that I find attractive: personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, etc. However, what's driven me to liberalism in my fairly recent graduation into political thought has been my impression that modern conservative politicians often don't exhibit the conservative principals I admire.

And if I'm being honest, Iraq pissed me off, too; not only Iraq, but conservatives' reactions to people who weren't "pro-war." I often wonder where I'll stand politically when that sore spot has finally healed over.



Funny Mamet story: when I was in college, I was in a Mamet play and came down with mono at the same time. Between the mono screwing with my head and Mamet's writing style, I couldn't form a complete sentence in my head for probably three months. It was a very strange place to be, especially for an English and theatre double major. Life imitating art.

typically the stinking rich spend the first part of their lives lying, cheating, and stealing and their latter days giving it away with strings and tax credits. to say whether such a person is compassionate or generous is disingenuous given the fact that you can't take it with you. death is the great equalizer.

Warren Buffet is unique. He doesn't even want his kids to be spoiled by his wealth. extraordinary.

"Warren Buffet is unique. He doesn't even want his kids to be spoiled by his wealth. extraordinary."

It's an example I intend to follow. Course, there won't be much left for charities either....but hey!

All you nut-jobs are right.

He's no liberal. He has some sense, some ability to support himself, a wife, he likes people in general, while realizing they are not perfect (except, of course, for AlGore), and realizes that the best for humanity is for government if possible to stay out of the way.

But he started out as one! Life experience does tend to lead one away from that socialist nonsense, if any life is actually experienced.

Normally, I'm not on at night, but I wanted to see what you martians would do when one of your own came to their senses....

Yep...tar and feather...make decrees about what's really in his head, and generally display the hostility toward humanity which leaves you buried in your mamma's basement hating the country you choose to live in, while benefitting from the hard-working, non-sychophants who are out there paying your bills and keeping Islamofascists from sending your mamma's house crashing down around your ears.

I'm sure AlGore will be displeased, as this man has clearly left the "Scientific Concencus", but I haven't been able to find him...Maybe he's out saving tigers!

br />

What?

warren buffet has also been betting AGAINST the dollar for a number of years.

Also, for r8rh8r:
"So he's not a "brain dead liberal". Great. Good for him. But as far as I can tell it doesn't change much. Now he is just a self-aware brain dead(insert party he perceives to give him stuff-here) that writes single-run plays 99.9999999999% of the world has never heard of and don't want to see."

Particularly the last part of that, I'd say that just because you haven't heard of him doesn't mean he's not important. Cinematic contributions:

Heist
Hannibal
Ronin
Wag the Dog
The Edge
Oleanna
American Buffalo
Hoffa
Glengarry Glen Ross
The Untouchables

These of course don't include other numerous contributions to the world of theatre, but there is some overlap there.

Yeah, but is his career now going to go the way of Dennis Miller?

I guess there's always "24" or FoxNews.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

Well, technically, Kennedy's dad stole Chicago with the help of the local Mob bosses. That's why they were particularily pissed at him when he installed RFK as AG and then started going after them seriously. JFK took Dulles advice on both Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs. That was definitely dumb in retrospect. Firing Dulles as head of the CIA was the smartest and the dumbest thing JFK ever did in life beyond boinking Marilyn.

Spud respects Mamet's abilities as writer of plays but questions his recent epiphanies in the sphere of politics and economics. David rejects absolute values that he never should had in the first place in order to gain a more nuanced view of the world but then goes on to replace old ridiculous absolutes with new ridiculous absolutes.

Much FAIL.

Stick to play writing, David.

Be Well.

As Blackburn sagely notes, "Not all bad news' is bad for everybody."

Or to put it another way: All bad news is good for somebody.

Spud respects Mamet's abilities as writer of plays but questions his recent epiphanies in the sphere of politics and economics. David rejects absolute values that he never should had in the first place in order to gain a more nuanced view of the world but then goes on to replace old ridiculous absolutes with new ridiculous absolutes.

Nothing like a fundamentalist, and nothing like a new convert. Kind of like a reformed sex addict who pushes abstinence.

warren buffet has also been betting AGAINST the dollar for a number of years.

~Nanc

Meh, Warren is okay. His swedish cousin Warren Smorgasbord is the real trublemaker!

Nothing like a fundamentalist, and nothing like a new convert. Kind of like a reformed sex addict who pushes abstinence

Simon sez "Noone more zealous than a convert"

Arf! Bible humour!

See also: Doctor Laura! An athiest.agnostoc who converted to Christianity and then reconverted when she married a rich Jewish guy.

Warning! Don't actually SEE Dr L in the sense that you actually look at those naked pix of her Spud posted earlier on today. Those are the reason MINDBLEACH was invented!

See also: Candy Lightner, founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving who went on to work as a piad lobbiest fer the Liquor industry.

See also: Danyale Anderson who, as an 18 year old, spent hundreds of hours going around to schools preaching the values of abstinance before having a child out of wedlock.

See also: Linda Lovelace former pr0n queen who went on to become a fierce antipr0n advocate.

See also: Reformed smokers.

See also: AA members.

Spud luffs irony most days.

Be Well.

See also:

Ah, Ronin. What fabulous dialogue. What did Mamet do, make the little Samurai toys?

spudley - my mother always said to stay away from hot ironies...

Simon sez "Noone more zealous than a convert"

Yes, that's the quote I was trying to remember but couldn't.

As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

His simple minded summing up of liberal philosophy makes him a good candidate for a conservative.
...and he called Waiting for Godot the "Twentieth Century's Greatest Play"; that thing was god awful in my opinion.
Also, he casually uses the terms "business" and "corporations" interchangeably.

MAMET DOES NOT ENDORSE EITHER SIDE

****** Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh. ******

........indeed.......he seems to be rejecting both Brain Dead Liberals and Brain Dead Conservatives who do not think for themselves.........

..................THINK FOR YOURSELF.............

........nothing wrong with that...........

Ok, so David Mamet is getting older - it happens to everyone. But he's confused about the brain-dead part. In lots of people the reality/empathy/generosity part of the brain dies off with age. Some people turn into crotchety old men yelling at the kids to get off their lawn, others think the movie they saw was what happened in their own life. Some become crazy right wingers.
In my opinion, its more correct to say he turned from being a Liberal into a brain-dead Right Winger.

So, David - enjoy your approaching dementia, take your happy pills and keep those dang kids off your lawn!.

Warren Buffet is unique. He doesn't even want his kids to be spoiled by his wealth. extraordinary.

Posted by nutcase at 2008-03-12 11:15 PM | Reply

Buffet has limited his children to $1 billion each. So they don't get spoiled.

Extraordinary!

David Mamet: I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind. As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart. These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life."
===========
I really don't believe that Mamet understands what "brain dead" really means. What is it during the past eight years that has convinced Mamet that government is not corrupt? If anything it has shown itself to be anything but upright and honest. Does Mamet give examples of where business is not exploitive? Come on already! The very reality of "corporations" existing do so in order to protect those from personal liability who are running the corporations. People are generally good at heart otherwise there would be rampant bedlam in the streets.

Reznwerks,

I know its a long article, but read it again, and this time, pay attention!

Vernon,

ah yes, details, details. thanks for straightening me out on that.

a sure (but politically impossible) path back to Democracy would be to make inheritance of our means of production impossible. we can only imagine everyone starting at the same place.

"Maybe if you had bothered to read the article or the any of the 308,000 links you wouldn't have opined about something you know nothing about. "

DANNI has proven time and time and time again that he never reads the article. He reads the headline and then jumps in with unconnected and irrelevant comments, cut and pasted from the comments he posted yesterday and the day before.

Though we may all be guilty of doing this at times, he apparently has no other method of operation. Maybe he worries that reading the actual source article would take away from the time he spends posting the same thing 20 to 30 times in each thread.

Though we may all be guilty of doing this at times, he apparently has no other method of operation. Maybe he worries that reading the actual source article would take away from the time he spends posting the same thing 20 to 30 times in each thread.

Posted by SappyHeadedHo

Uhhhh Sappy, I believe Danni is a girl. Maybe YOU should do a little more research before spouting off.

Losing David Mamet hurts. I don't know who's turn it was to keep an eye on him, but that lib is going to find coal in his stocking this Holidaymas.

Posted by rcade at 2008-03-12 08:22 PM

At least RCade can be honest with how he feels about this, as well as a little humorous.